06-09-1986 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

26. The •:ity Council has always, required that. when ta.o or more unsewered lots are owned `n common, each lot must individually meet or exceed the requirements of she Zoning Code before an. i )F the lots can be built, upon and that two or more substandard lots owned in common must be combined so that the resultinq combined lot meets the requirements of the "honing Code before the lore can be built upon. Z 1. The granting of such a variance would require amending the many sections of the Comprehensive Plan that govern the rural development. Df the City. The City of Orono has been consistent in requiring a minimum of two acres for a buildable lot in the rural areas of the City where there is no sewer service. 28. In review of the factual findings noted above, the City finds that to establish a precedent that would allow severely substandard lots to be developed to be in complete conflict with the established environmental standards for rural development within the City and to be detrimental to the public, health, safety and welfare. The City also looks to the broader., environmental principals and goals setforth in its Community Management Plan and the intent of the specific zoning district when dealing with matters related the public, health, safety and welfare. Issues involving the public health, safety and welfare are not only resolved in securing the obvious traffic and drainag- concerns of surro- -ing property owners but the City also must prov..ie its citizens %, a designated nd approved optimum level of density, open space and quality of life. 29. ThE granting of such a variance would require the rezoning of the property to an urban lot size in addition to requiring the ext,�nsion of City service. Lo the property to maintain a suitable level of fire protection. 30., The gran. ing v': such a variance, would require the extension of City water and Fewer to maintain the standards setforth in the Orono Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan - an urban sized lot. 31. In granting such a variance, Council. would abandon a longstanding, consistent policy in consideration of the buildability of substandard lots !ender common ownershiT-. and thoreby establish an adverse precedent. 32. Denial of the subject ve.riances would nor stitute a taking of property or loss of substantial value becaue rcels 2 and 3 have always had value and have been used as required a.ea for the residence on Parcel 1. 33. The intent of the application is contrary to the letter and intent of the Orono Comprehensive Plan. Page 8 of 9